Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All eses and Dissertations 2016-02-01 Accepting Evolution and Believing in God: How Religious Persons Perceive the eory of Evolution Katherine F. Manwaring Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: hps://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons is Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All eses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Manwaring, Katherine F., "Accepting Evolution and Believing in God: How Religious Persons Perceive the eory of Evolution" (2016). All eses and Dissertations. 6215. hps://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6215
207
Embed
How Religious Persons Perceive the Theory of Evolution
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Brigham Young UniversityBYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations
2016-02-01
Accepting Evolution and Believing in God: HowReligious Persons Perceive the Theory of EvolutionKatherine F. ManwaringBrigham Young University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Biology Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertationsby an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
BYU ScholarsArchive CitationManwaring, Katherine F., "Accepting Evolution and Believing in God: How Religious Persons Perceive the Theory of Evolution"(2016). All Theses and Dissertations. 6215.https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6215
Accepting Evolution and Believing in God: How Religious Persons Perceive the Theory of Evolution
Katherine F. Manwaring
Department of Biology, BYU Doctor of Philosophy
Students frequently hold an incorrect view of evolution. There are several potential
barriers that prevent students from engaging evolutionary theory including lack of knowledge, limited scientific reasoning ability, and religiosity. Our research provides tools for overcoming barriers related to religiosity and diagnoses the barriers preventing students from fully engaging in learning the theory of evolution. This was a two-part study.
The first part of our study addressed two hypothesized barriers to learning evolutionary theory among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon): (1) religious views stemming from incorrect understanding of the Church’s neutral stance on evolution and (2) misunderstanding the theory of evolution. We measured the relationship between acceptance of evolution and knowledge of evolution, religiosity, and understanding of religious doctrine on evolution. Additionally, we measured the effect of including a discussion on religious doctrine in the classroom. Students in all sections, except for a control section, were taught a unit on evolution that included a discussion on the neutral LDS doctrine on evolution. Students enrolled in introductory biology for non-majors took pre, post, and longitudinal surveys on topics in evolution. We found significant relationships between knowledge, understanding of religious doctrine, and religiosity with acceptance of evolution. Additionally, an in-class discussion of he LDS doctrine on evolution helped students be more accepting of evolution.
In the second part of our study, we studied a broader population to analyze differences in acceptance of evolution based on religious affiliation and religiosity. Our study focused on the interaction of five variables and their implication for evolution education: (1) religious commitment (2) religious views (3) knowledge of evolution (4) scientific reasoning ability and (5) acceptance of evolution. We measured each of these among equal samples of Southern Baptists, Catholics, Jews, and LDS populations and analyzed them with traditional statistics and structural equation modeling. Our findings showed that religious affiliation, religiosity and creationist views effected evolution acceptance, but not knowledge or scientific reasoning.
These data provide compelling evidence that as students gain an accurate understanding of their religious doctrines and knowledge of evolution, they are more willing to accept the basic concepts of evolution. They also show diagnostic results that help educators better understand students’ background and views. When educators better understand views that students hold, they are better able to design instruction for optimal learning. Keywords: education, misconceptions, biology, STEM, evolution acceptance, creationism, religiosity, scientific reasoning, religion, denomination, religiosity, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, LDS, Baptist
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to my committee for their patience and help with the design,
implementation and communication for my research. Thanks to the Bybee lab for help in
cleaning data and providing feedback on ideas and manuscripts. Most importantly, I thank my
family, especially my husband, Ryan, and my daughter, Kyah, for their support and
encouragement in pursuing this degree. Further acknowledgements are included at the end of
each chapter.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
Is there a relationship between conceptual understanding of evolutionary theory and acceptance? ........................................................................................................................... 22
Is there a relationship between religious commitment (religiosity) and student acceptance of evolution? .............................................................................................................................. 22
Does an understanding of LDS doctrine concerning evolution affect acceptance of evolution among LDS students? And Can instructors influence LDS student acceptance of evolution by helping them understand the specific religious doctrine on evolution? ........................... 23
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 101
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 106
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 107
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................. 108
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................. 122
APPENDIX F: Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning ........................................... 165
APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................................. 175
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1 Table 1. Number of Complete Responses to Semester and Follow-up Surveys……... 10 Table 2. Categories of Relative Acceptance of Evolution…………………………….. 13 Table 3. Predictors of Initial Acceptance of Evolution……………………………….. 14 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Within Semester Results. …………………………. 18 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Students that Responded to the Longitudinal Survey…………………………………………………………………………………..18
Chapter 2
Table 1. Sample Size by Religiosity………………………………..……………......... 50 Table 2. Fit Statistics and Adjustments for Individuals Scales in SEM …………….... 51 Table 3. Average Scores of Knowledge of Evolution by Religion…………………… 54 Table 4. Cross Tabulation of Acceptance of Creationist Views by Religion………… 55 Table 5. Cross Tabulation of Evolution Acceptance by Religion…………………….. 55 Table 6. Effect of Religiosity within Religion on Evolution Acceptance…………….. 57 Table 7. Acceptance of Components of Evolution by Religious Affiliation………….. 59
Chapter 3
Table 1. Fit statistics for each instrument and measurement model………………...... 87
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1 Figure 1. Evolution Acceptance at Beginning (MATE#1) and End (MATE #2) of the Semester…………………………………….………………………………….. 16 Figure 2. Gains in Evolution Acceptance vs. Initial Acceptance Level………………. 16 Figure 3. Treatment vs. Control Group in Changes in Acceptance, Understanding of Religious Doctrine, and Knowledge of Evolution…………………………………….. 20
Chapter 2
Figure 1. Complete Measurement Model……………………….……………...……... 52 Figure 2. Structural Model………………………………………………………..…... 53 Figure 3. (a) Average Acceptance of Evolution by Religious Affiliation (b) Average Acceptance of Creationist Views by Religious Affiliation……………………….…… 55 Figures 4. (a) Acceptance of Evolution by Religiosity within Religion (b) Creationist Views by Religiosity within Religion…......................................................................... 57 Figure 5. Acceptance of Evolution Tenets by Religious Affiliation…………………. 58
Background: Students frequently hold an incorrect view of evolution. There are several potential
barriers that prevent religious students, specifically, from engaging evolutionary theory in the
classroom. This study focuses on two hypothesized barriers on learning evolutionary theory in a
highly religious model population, specifically members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints (LDS or Mormon): (1) religious views stemming from incorrect or inadequate
understanding of the Mormon church’s neutral stance on evolution and (2) misunderstanding of
the theory of evolution. The LDS population at Brigham Young University provides the ideal
setting for studying evolution education among religious individuals in a controlled environment.
To ascertain the prevalence and effect of these barriers, we measured the relationship between
acceptance of evolution and knowledge of evolution, religiosity, and understanding of religious
doctrine on evolution in introductory non-majors biology courses. Additionally, we measured the
2
effect of including a discussion on religious doctrine in the classroom. Students in all sections,
except for one control section, were taught a unit on evolution that included a discussion on the
neutral LDS doctrine on evolution. Data was gathered pre, post, and longitudinally. Results: Our
data demonstrate a positive relationship between knowledge and acceptance of evolution, a
positive relationship between understanding of religious doctrine and acceptance of evolution,
and a negative relationship between religiosity and acceptance of evolution. Additionally, when
an in-class discussion was held addressing the LDS doctrine on evolution students became more
accepting of the principles of evolution. Conclusions: These data provide compelling evidence
that an accurate understanding of their religious doctrines and knowledge of evolution can lead
to greater acceptance of the basic concepts of evolution among highly religious students.
3
INTRODUCTION
Evolution is the change in populations over time that has lead to the diversity of life on earth
(Mayr 2001). Examining the world in the context of evolution is central to understanding the
biological patterns and complexity found in nature. For example, the anatomical similarities
shared by all mammals are best explained by the principle of common ancestry and the process
of natural selection. Understanding (and accepting) the theory of evolution leads to greater
improvements in agriculture, medicine, political decisions, etc. The United States falls short in
understanding and acceptance of Darwinian evolution compared to other countries (Miller et al.
2006, Newport 2012). In general, US students have a fragmented and incorrect view of the
theory (Rees 2007, Brewer and Gardner 2013). They also appear to be hindered in understanding
and acceptance of evolution due to misconceptions (Battisti et al. 2010, Hawley et al. 2011,
Foster 2012). This common rejection of evolution by the general population impedes the ability
of students to truly understand and embrace nature (including their place in it) and biodiversity.
While there are many papers that address various factors influencing acceptance of evolution
(Sherkat 2011, Wiles and Alters 2011, Heddy and Nadelson 2013, Wiles 2014, Carter and Wiles
2014), we will focus on three primary variables: (1) ignorance/lack of knowledge about
evolutionary theory, (2) religiosity and (3) understanding of religious doctrine.
Regarding the first variable, research has shown that students harbor many misconceptions
concerning the theory of evolution (Nehm and Schonfeld 2007, Battisti et al. 2010, Hawley et al.
2011, Foster 2012). These misconceptions range from not understanding the specific details
about foundational principles (e.g., genetic drift) to not comprehending the larger scale processes
4
(e.g., natural selection) and what evolution is in general (Rees 2007, Halverson 2010, Andrews et
al. 2012, Athanasiou and Mavrikaki 2013, Brewer and Gardner 2013). To better understand how
to aid students in overcoming these misconceptions, numerous quantitative assessment tools
have been developed that differentiate elements of evolutionary theory in order to identify
underlying fallacies that fuel misconceptions (Anderson 2002, Rutledge and Sadler 2007, Cotner
et al. 2010, Price et al. 2014). Many of these instruments are measurements of knowledge, which
take into consideration the number of misconceptions students have (e.g., Knowledge of
Evolution Exam; Cotner et al. 2010).
The relationship between knowledge and acceptance of evolution has been widely studied, but
no clear association has emerged (Rissler et al. 2014). Robbins and Roy (2007) found change in
evolution acceptance after limited instruction, while others found that change in acceptance
associated with increased knowledge happened only for those who were initially undecided on
the topic (Wilson 2005, Ingram and Nelson 2006). Conversely, others have found that
improvement in knowledge does not lead to increased acceptance of evolution (Lawson and
Worsnop 1992, Crawford et al. 2005, Cavallo and McCall 2008). Interestingly, Nadelson and
Sinatra (2010) showed that acceptance of evolution can increase even when knowledge does not.
When the relationship between knowledge and acceptance of evolution has been researched
outside of the US, where there is less tension between evolution and religion, studies have found
that increased knowledge led to increased acceptance of evolution (Akyol et al. 2010, Kim and
Nehm 2011, Ha et al. 2012).
5
The second variable we consider is religion. Given that the positive relationship between
knowledge and acceptance of evolution may be diminished by religion, we discuss two
underlying mechanisms concerning religion that influence acceptance of evolution: religiosity
and understanding of religious doctrine (Andersson and Wallin 2006, Coyne 2012, Heddy and
Nadelson 2013, Rissler et al. 2014). Religiosity, as addressed herein, is considered a commitment
to respective religious practices centering on a belief in a higher being. Several studies show that
the more religious students are, the less likely they are to understand evolution or have positive
attitudes toward the topic (e.g., Lawson and Worsnop 1992, Meadows et al. 2000, Barnes et al.
2009, Moore et al. 2011). Coyne (2012) found that resistance to evolution is “uniquely high” in
the US, and it is the high religiosity of the US that drives this opposition. For example, 60% of
the general US public now accepts that humans have evolved (Masci 2009)), yet up to 92% of
some religious groups still reject human evolution (Miller 2008). This suggests that religiosity is
a large part as to why the US struggles in its acceptance of evolution.
The third variable we consider that influences acceptance of evolution is an understanding of
respective religious doctrines (core set of beliefs/practices) concerning evolution. It may be
difficult for religious individuals to accept the theory of evolution when they feel that the theory
conflicts with the doctrine of their religion. Some religions do have doctrine that openly rejects
the theory of evolution (Weeks 1999, Affirmation of Creation 2004). However, many religious
groups do not have an inherent conflict between their doctrine and the theory of evolution, either
having a neutral or affirmative stance toward evolution (Colburn and Henriques 2006, Kohut et
al. 2009). Yet, many individuals who claim membership in these “accepting” religions still feel
that evolution conflicts with their religious and therefore personal beliefs (Reiss 2009, Burton
6
2011, Hawley et al. 2011). It may be that individuals are not aware of their respective religion’s
overall view of evolution. Christian denominations vary greatly in acceptance of evolution. For
example, Catholics are the most accepting as compared to other Christian denominations (Miller
2008). The current general acceptance among Catholics seems to date to 1950 when Pope Pius
XII stated that the theory of evolution does not conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church
(Mislin 2012). The majority of the doctrines from other denominations also do not directly
conflict with evolutionary theory (Ludlow 1992, Religious Groups' Views on Evolution 2009,
McKenna 2014). Yet, a survey conducted by the Pew Forum showed the majority of people
belonging to Christian denominations reject the theory of evolution (Miller 2008). The Catholic
Church is just one example of a religion whose doctrine is neutral, if not supportive, toward
evolution yet many of its members still reject the theory. These results suggest that perhaps the
majority of Christians who reject evolution do so on the basis of misconceptions and/or a
misunderstanding of their own religious doctrine.
An Example from Latter-day Saints (LDS)
In order to investigate the relationship between knowledge and religiosity with acceptance of
evolution, we chose to study a highly religious population. The LDS population provides an ideal
model for studying the acceptance of evolution because 78% of the overall church membership is
opposed to evolution (Miller 2008) even though there is no doctrine that openly rejects it. The
LDS church is the fourth largest Christian denomination in the US and has over 15 million
members worldwide (Pew Research Center 2015).
7
Regarding the origin of humans, the presiding body of the LDS church has made three official
statements (see methods below; Smith et al. 1909, Smith et al. 1910, Grant et al. 1925). There
have been no official doctrinal statements addressing the theory of evolution. The clearest and
most recent statement on evolution formally associated with the LDS church is in the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which is approved by BYU’s board of trustees (including the
President of the church). Statements from this article assert that the LDS religion “is not hostile
to real science…that which is demonstrated, we accept with joy” and, “the scriptures tell why
man was created but they do not tell us how” (Ludlow 1992). From these statements it is clear
that the LDS religion maintains strict belief in God as the creator. However, the church does not
specify how the creation was accomplished, nor does it confirm or deny the potential for
evolutionary creation (i.e., theistic evolution), and the language of these existing statements
make allowances for scientific interpretation. Even though LDS church doctrine holds a neutral
stance towards evolution, the vast majority of LDS members reject the theory of evolution
(Miller 2008).
The LDS student population at Brigham Young University (BYU) is an ideal system to
investigate the questions outlined below because the population is relatively homogenous in
religious commitment, moral views, age and life experience. Over 98% of BYU students are
LDS. The student body is ranked as the most religious in the US (Hafiz 2014), and offers a
unique model for researching evolution education. The views of the BYU student body towards
evolution also reflect those of the general Mormon population (see discussion). The LDS church
sponsors BYU and urges that course subjects, including the theory of evolution, be taught with
8
the same subject matter, rigor and data as other universities across the US (BYU Mission
Statement; see Appendix C).
Research Questions
This research examines the influence of three factors influencing LDS student acceptance of
evolution: knowledge of evolution, religiosity, and comprehension of the neutral LDS position
on evolution. We have four main research questions:
1. Is there a relationship between conceptual understanding of evolutionary theory and
acceptance?
2. Is there a relationship between religious commitment (religiosity) and student
acceptance of evolution?
3. Does an understanding of LDS doctrine concerning evolution affect the acceptance of
evolution among LDS students?
4. Can instructors influence LDS student acceptance of evolution by helping them
understand the specific religious doctrine on evolution?
9
METHODS
Approval from the BYU IRB was obtained for this research prior to data collection (IRB
X110455).
Study Population
The LDS population at BYU provides the ideal setting for studying evolution education among
religious individuals in a controlled environment. Brigham Young University is a LDS
sponsored private institution that promotes teaching religious principles in every subject.
Because discussion of religion is encouraged in the classroom, we have controlled the presence
of religious discussion in general biology classrooms and measured the effects of such a
discussion on student knowledge and acceptance of evolution.
Sampling
We sampled undergraduate students enrolled in introductory biology for non-majors at BYU,
Provo, UT.
We administered surveys measuring conceptual understanding, religiosity, understanding of
religious doctrines, and student acceptance of evolutionary theory among LDS students. Over
1500 complete responses were collected over the course of two semesters from two sections
during winter (January-April) and 11 sections during fall (September-December) 2013 (see
Table 1). All students surveyed were LDS and enrolled in an introductory course for non-majors
that included a unit on evolution. We recognize that the results reported herein may be
influenced by several factors such as curriculum design. However, our large sample size should
10
serve to mitigate many of these issues. The composition of the introductory biology sections was
58% freshman, 25% sophomores, 11% juniors, and 6% seniors as the introductory biology
course is a general education requirement and can be taken at any point during the undergraduate
studies. To measure retention of knowledge and acceptance, a longitudinal survey was sent to all
students five to seven months after completing the course.
Table 1. Number of Complete Responses to Semester and Follow-up Surveys Semester Surveys Six-Month Follow-up Survey Winter 2013 N=234
September 2013 N=72 (30.8%)
Fall 2013 N=863
July 2014 N=201 (23.3%)
Course Intervention and Control Group
To determine if we could influence acceptance by targeting misconceptions about LDS religious
doctrine, we used a quasi-experimental design comparing sections where religious doctrine was
addressed (treatment condition, n = 1104) to a section in which it was not addressed (control
condition, n = 101). We administered the same dependent measures to each section and
compared them.
Teaching the LDS stance on evolution. During the course of the semester, all but one of the
introductory biology sections (control) included at least part of one lecture that presented and
discussed the official church stance on human origins via the “BYU Evolution Packet”
(http://www.ndbf.net/010.pdf). This packet presents the official LDS church statements
regarding human origins and is comprised of an introduction to the packet and its history, a
series of statements made by the presiding body of the church, and a statement from the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism. During this lecture, designed more like a discussion, students were
11
allowed to ask questions and make comments. This formal discussion took up to one lecture
period (50-75 minutes); there are 28 or 42 lecture periods (2100 minutes) for introductory
biology during a BYU semester, depending on whether a class meets two or three times a week.
The control treatment had access to the BYU Evolution Packet if they desired to look it up on
their own, but no time was set aside to address or discuss it. There is no way of knowing whether
students in the control section accessed it or not. During the time the treatment sections devoted
to discussion of the official LDS stance on evolution, the control section continued with standard
evolution content.
Teaching evolution. Students in both the treatment and control groups were taught a unit on
evolution (4-8 lectures). Specifically, students were given evidences (biological observations)
explained by evolution and were exposed to a variety of evidences such as morphological
similarities across organisms, vestigial traits, fossils, a common genetic code, phylogenetics, etc.
They were also taught about the processes of natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, non-
random mating and mutation as mechanisms for evolution. Overall, the unit on evolution for
both the treatment and control groups represented the standard topics and materials covered in a
typical introductory biology text.
Instruments
Students in both treatments were sent links to the following web-based surveys via email from K.
Manwaring (author). Incentives for survey response depended on the instructor and included
assignment credit or extra credit. Feedback on surveys was not provided to students after any of
the administrations of the survey.
The Knowledge of Evolution Exam (KEE; Cotner et al. 2010). The KEE was used to test our first
research question, as it is a measure of conceptual knowledge. This instrument was developed as
12
a concept inventory for evolution. Student answers were scored dichotomously (correct or
incorrect) and then summed for this ten-item instrument. This instrument was administered as a
pretest at the beginning of the semester and a posttest at the end. It was also included in the
longitudinal survey.
1. Religiosity and Demographic Survey (Appendix A): The religiosity instrument was used
to test our second question, which addresses religious factors that influence acceptance of
evolution. For this survey, students answered general demographic questions as well as
questions regarding the frequency of their religious practices. Questions regarding
religiosity (7,9,12,16,19) each had five response categories and were summed to provide
an overall measure of religiosity. A factor analysis was performed on these five items for
validation that these questions measure the same variable in respondents. The remaining
questions, which differed in the number of response categories, were scored individually
and used as grouping variables in analyses. This was administered once during the
semester.
2. Understanding of the LDS Stance on Evolution (ULSE; Appendix B): After conducting
surveys during the winter 2013 semester, we saw a need to measure student
understanding of the LDS stance on evolution. Thus, a new instrument was created and
administered during the fall 2013 semester. It is comprised of questions assessing student
understanding of the LDS stance on evolution (ULSE). This was used to test our third
question regarding students understanding of their respective religious doctrine regarding
evolution. This is a 3-item instrument, with six response categories for each question
(strongly disagree to strongly agree; Appendix B). A factor analysis was performed on
these three items for validation that they measure the same variable in respondents (that is
13
understanding of the LDS stance on evolution). Scores were computed by summing
responses to each individual question. This instrument was administered as a pretest at
the beginning of the semester and a posttest at the end. It was also included in the
longitudinal survey for the fall 2013 respondents.
3. Measurement of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE; Rutledge and Sadler
2007): We used this survey as our dependent measure—a measure of the acceptance of
evolution. This survey addresses attitudes toward topics such as the scientific validity of
evolution, human evolution, evidence of evolution, and the scientific community in
general. This 20-item instrument (with six response categories ranking from strongly
disagree to strongly agree) was administered as a pretest at the beginning of the semester
and a posttest at the end. It was also included in the longitudinal survey. Though the
MATE has been previously validated (Rutledge and Sadler 2007), a factor analysis was
performed on the MATE, per the suggestion of Wagler and Wagler (2013) to validate an
instrument each time it is administered to a new unique population. Scores were
computed by summing responses to each individual question. Totaled scores were
assigned a relative category (see Table 2) as done in Wiles and Alters (2011).
Table 2. Categories of Relative Acceptance of Evolution. Relative Acceptance Category
MATE Score MATE #1 Response Breakdown
MATE #2 Response Breakdown
Very high acceptance 107 - 120 61 (5.5%) 266 (23.8%) High acceptance 92 - 106 192 (17.2%) 367 (32.9%) Moderate acceptance 78 - 91 357 (32.0%) 282 (25.2%) Low acceptance 64 - 77 327 (29.3%) 158 (14.1%) Very low acceptance 20 - 63 117 (10.5%) 31 (2.8%) Table 2 Description. MATE #1 and MATE #2 response breakdowns represents the number of students who fell in each category at the beginning and end of the semester, respectively.
14
Analyses
Using SPSS v. 21 (IBM, [Armonk, NY]), we ran a series of traditional statistical analyses to
address our research questions. First, to determine which factors (conceptual understanding,
religious factors, or doctrinal understanding) predicted an overall acceptance of evolution, we ran
a general linear model (GLM) multiple regression analysis with the KEE, demographic factors,
our religiosity measure, and the ULSE as predictors of the MATE (see Table 3 for complete list
of variables entered into model). Items were entered stepwise into the model with an entry of
a .05 p-value and a removal of a .10 p-value.
Table 3. Predictors of Initial Acceptance of Evolution
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
Final Model
Correlation with MATE (R) B Std. Error Beta t Significance
ULSE #1 .475 1.844 .137 .419 13.462 < .001 KEE #1 .312 1.345 .209 .199 6.438 < .001 Controversial Topics .250 2.415 .425 .172 5.677 < .001 Religiosity Scale -.157 -0.967 .190 -.154 -5.082 < .001 Table 3 Description. Excluded (non-significant) variables are: instructor, class day, time of class, gender, biology experience, year in college, family income, parent education, health, parent religiosity, involvement in clubs, church mission experience, and family religious affiliation.
To analyze change in knowledge of evolution and acceptance of evolution we compared pretest,
posttest, and longitudinal scores on the KEE and the MATE, using repeated measures ANOVAs
and the frequency distribution of the relative MATE categories. To measure an increase in
understanding of religious doctrine and acceptance of evolutionary theory, we compared pretest,
posttest, and longitudinal scores on the ULSE and MATE using repeated measures ANOVAs.
15
To assess the success of discussing religious doctrine in clarifying understanding of doctrinal
stance and increasing acceptance of evolution, we compared the change in evolution knowledge
(KEE), doctrinal understanding (ULSE) and acceptance of evolution (MATE) between treatment
and control sections using an independent one-way ANOVA analysis.
RESULTS
Reliability and Validity of Scales
From our exploratory factor analysis of the religiosity items, we recovered one factor with an
eigenvalue much above the rest. This factor explained 46.45% of the variance. The scale had an
acceptable level of internal consistency, as determined by a Cronbach’s alpha of .677.
From our exploratory factor analysis of the ULSE instrument, only one factor was extracted.
This factor explained 62.29% of the variance. The scale had an acceptable level of internal
consistency, as determined by a Cronbach’s alpha of .693.
From our exploratory factor analysis of the MATE items, we recovered four factors with an
eigenvalue above 1. However, the first factor explains 46.84% of the variance and the next factor
only explains an additional 6.97%. In addition, when examining the factor rotation, all items
loaded highest on the first factor with all loadings exceeding .5, with the exception of one, which
had a loading of .488. The scale had a high level of internal consistency, as determined by a
Cronbach’s alpha of .915.
16
Change in Evolution Acceptance
From a frequency distribution, the majority of students had moderate to low acceptance of
evolution at the beginning of the semester (see Figure 1). By the end of the semester there was a
significant gain in evolution acceptance (p < .001, see Figure 2), which resulted in the majority
of students having high acceptance of evolution.
Figure 1. Evolution Acceptance at Beginning (MATE#1) and End (MATE #2) of the Semester
Figure 2. Gains in Evolution Acceptance vs. Initial Acceptance Level
17
Predictors of Initial Acceptance
Our results show that knowledge of evolution (KEE), understanding of LDS doctrine (ULSE)
and religiosity significantly predict initial acceptance of evolution (MATE; F (4,748) = 91.530, p
< .001; see Table 3). Only religiosity and evolution acceptance were negatively correlated, with
a Pearson Correlation of -.157 (p <.001, see Table 3 for additional statistics). All slopes were
fixed as section type (i.e., control vs. treatment) was not taken into consideration for this part of
the analyses. See Table 3 for additional factors entered in the GLM regression and final model
outcome.
Relationship Between Knowledge and Acceptance
From the GLM multiple regression analysis, knowledge of evolutionary theory (KEE score) was
a significant predictor of initial attitude toward evolution (see Table 3). For every point gained in
understanding (on a 10-point scale) acceptance increased by an average of 1.35 (on a 120-points
scale).
A repeated measure ANOVA tested for significant gains over time in student knowledge and in
student acceptance of evolution as well as for an interaction between KEE and MATE scores.
Students demonstrated significant gains in knowledge (KEE; F (1,1051) = 70.64, p < .001; see
Table 4 for averages) and in acceptance of evolution (MATE; F (1,1053) = 1009.45, p < .001;
see Table 4 for averages). The interaction between the gains in the MATE and the gains in the
KEE was also significant (F (1,1050) = 945.76, p < .001), meaning that students who increased
in knowledge (KEE) the most during the semester saw the greatest gains in acceptance of
evolution (MATE).
18
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Within Semester Results.
ULSE#2 869 3 18 13.79 2.91 17.72 – 18.16 Table 4 Description: Significance and 95% CI are results of t-tests comparing the pre to post survey averages of each instrument.. #1 indicates the responses collected at the beginning of the semester (pre survey); #2 indicates the responses collected at the end of the semester (post survey).
A repeated measure ANOVA comparing the longitudinal survey to the post semester survey
showed there was a significant decrease in knowledge over the 5-7 months after the course
(KEE; F (1,283) = 28.9, p < .001; see Table 5). There were no significant changes in the MATE
between the post semester survey and longitudinal survey.
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Students that Responded to the Longitudinal Survey.
N Min Max Mean Std. Dev.
95% Confidence Interval
MATE #1 273 40 120 83.32 15.60 77.67 – 81.84 MATE #2 273 50 120 95.26 15.14 88.42 – 92.65 MATE #3 273 50 120 95.52 15.90 88.25 – 92.75 KEE #1 273 0 10 6.27 1.88 5.86 – 6.39 KEE #2 273 0 10 6.81 1.93 6.31 – 6.88 KEE #3 273 0 10 6.48 1.87 6.11 – 6.67 ULSE #1 177 8 18 13.79 2.40 13.44 – 14.16 ULSE #2 177 7 18 14.21 2.63 17.56 – 18.46 ULSE #3 201 3 18 13.52 3.13 17.62 – 18.67 Table 5 Description: #1 indicates the responses collected at the beginning of the semester; #2 indicates the responses collected at the end of the semester; #3 indicates the responses collected in the longitudinal survey. Acceptance of evolution and understanding of LDS doctrine on evolution remained higher after the semester is over while knowledge of evolution decreased.
19
Relationship Between Understanding of Religious Doctrine and Acceptance
From the GLM multiple regression analysis, another predictor of acceptance of evolution
(MATE score) was degree of understanding of the LDS stance on evolution (ULSE score; see
Table 3). For every 1-point increase in understanding of doctrine (on an 18-point scale), the
MATE increased 1.84 points (on a 120-point scale).
A repeated measure ANOVA detected significant gains over time in student understanding of the
LDS stance on evolution (ULSE; F (1,820) = 2427.41, p < .001; see Table 4 for averages);
however, this increase was not consistent across sections (discussed below for the control
section). The interaction between the gains in the MATE and the gains in the ULSE was also
significant (F (1,820) = 213.94, p < .001), indicating that students who increased most in the
ULSE saw the greatest gains in the MATE as well.
A repeated measure ANOVA comparing the longitudinal survey to the post semester survey
showed there was no significant change in understanding of the LDS stance on evolution (ULSE;
Table 5).
Effectiveness of Treatment (Discussion of LDS Stance on Evolution)
A one-way ANO VA showed that students who participated in a discussion about religious
doctrine had significantly higher average gains in acceptance (MATE) than students in the
control section where a discussion was not held (F (1,1052) = 26.30, p < .001; see Figure 3). In
addition, the students participating in the discussion had a greater average gain in understanding
20
of LDS doctrine (ULSE) than students who did not (F (1,820) = 15.19, p < .01; see Figure 3b).
Interestingly, these gains in acceptance and understanding of religious doctrine did not
correspond to an increase in understanding of evolutionary theory. Students in the section
without discussion of LDS doctrine gained more knowledge on average than sections that did
have a discussion (F (1,1050) = 6.59, p < .01; see Figure 3c).
Figure 3. Treatment vs. Control Group in Changes in Acceptance, Understanding of Religious Doctrine, and Knowledge of Evolution: (a) Pretest, posttest, and change in acceptance of evolution (MATE) for the treatment vs. control sections. The change in acceptance was significantly more for the treatment sections (see part d. of same figure). (b) Pretest, posttest, and change in understanding of LDS doctrine (ULSE) for the treatment vs. control sections. The change in ULSE was significantly more for the treatment sections (see part d. of same figure). (c) Pretest, posttest, and change in knowledge of evolution for the treatment vs. control sections. The change in knowledge was significantly more for the control section (see part d. of same figure). (d) Statistics and significance level for the previous three sections of the figure.
21
DISCUSSION
This study explores three variables and their possible relationship with acceptance of evolution
among religious students. These variables are: knowledge of evolution, religious practices, and
knowledge of religious doctrine. In addition, we measured changes in the acceptance of
evolution following a discussion dedicated to LDS doctrine and evolution.
Overall, students increased substantially in their acceptance of evolution over the course of the
semester (see Figure 2). At the beginning of the semester, only 22.7% of students were highly
supportive (accepting) of evolution, while 39.8% of students were dismissive (Figure 1). The
remaining students fell into the moderately accepting category. Thus, the BYU student body is
representative of the overall US LDS church membership regarding acceptance of evolution
(22% acceptance rate; Miller 2008). While the perceived disagreement between religion and
evolution continues, educators should be encouraged by student ability to learn and change
perspective. By the end of the semester 56.7% of students were very highly accepting or highly
accepting of evolution, a significant increase of 34% (p < .001) from the beginning of the
semester. Thus, even though a low percentage of students initially accepted evolution at a high
level, there were even fewer students who dismissed it by the end (see Figure 1).
We also found that with explicit instruction, there is a significant increase in knowledge of
evolution. This is a logical and expected result (Cotner et al. 2009, Kim and Nehm 2011, Moore
et al. 2011). In general, students respond well (via increase in knowledge) when evidence of
evolutionary theory is provided and specific misconceptions are targeted (Wiles 2014, Moore et
22
al. 2011). Obviously educating students on evolution will improve their understanding of it, but
some studies show this is only true for the least religious students (Moore et al. 2011, Kahan
2014, Rissler et al 2014). Our data show no significant relationship between religiosity and gains
in knowledge of evolution. Instead, students made significant gains in knowledge of evolution
regardless of religiosity.
Is there a relationship between conceptual understanding of evolutionary theory and
acceptance?
Many have found a positive relationship between knowledge and acceptance of evolution
(Wilson 2005, Ingram and Nelson 2006, Robbins and Roy 2007), while others have not (Lawson
and Worsnop 1992, Crawford et al. 2005, Cavallo and McCall 2008). We found a positive
relationship between knowledge of evolution and acceptance of evolution (see Table 3). In
addition, as students with an incorrect or limited understanding gained greater competency with
the theory of evolution (defined as being able to correctly comprehend major evolutionary
tenets) they also became more accepting of it (see Figure 3a & 1c).
Is there a relationship between religious commitment (religiosity) and student acceptance of
evolution?
Our data show that religiosity does affect their initial willingness to accept evolution. We found a
negative relationship between overall religiosity and acceptance of evolution (Table 3). The
items used in our measure of religiosity (e.g., frequency of prayer, church attendance, belief in an
afterlife, etc.; see Appendix A) show that religiosity itself may be a causative factor in low
acceptance of evolution. These findings are in line with numerous, previous research articles
23
(e.g., Andersson and Wallin 2006, Coyne 2012, Heddy and Nadelson 2013, Rissler et al. 2014).
Student religiosity did affect the initial acceptance rate of evolution (Table 3), but it did not
hinder students from increasing in acceptance of evolution by the end of the semester. Students
who were initially the least accepting of evolution had a significant increase in acceptance. We
found that religiosity was a significant positive predictor (p < .001) of change in MATE and that
the more religious an LDS individual ranked the greater the gains in acceptance of evolution
over the course of the semester. Even though we used normalized gains to remove a ceiling
effect, it should be noted that it may be that the most religious students were initially the least
accepting of evolution and had the most to gain. Nevertheless, although religiosity is a factor in
initial acceptance of evolution, it does not prevent LDS individuals from learning or modifying
their views.
Does an understanding of LDS doctrine concerning evolution affect acceptance of evolution
among LDS students? And Can instructors influence LDS student acceptance of evolution by
helping them understand the specific religious doctrine on evolution?
One novel result from this study was that as students learned more about their own religion and
its doctrine on evolution, acceptance rates increased significantly (p < .001). We found a positive
relationship between student initial understanding of the LDS stance on evolution (ULSE) and
initial acceptance of evolution (MATE; see Table 3).
We also found that as students with an incorrect or limited understanding of the LDS stance on
evolution gained knowledge of LDS doctrine (via class discussion (Figure 3b). Students who did
not participate in a discussion had greater gains in knowledge of evolution but had significantly
24
less gains in acceptance of it (see Figure 3d). The more misconceptions a student harbored
regarding the LDS stance on evolution the less likely they were to accept the theory of evolution.
In the control class, students made significantly smaller gains in their understanding of LDS
doctrine on evolution (ULSE; Figure 3b & 1d). Not having a discussion focused on LDS doctrine
could have impeded their ability to synthesize their understanding of evolution with LDS beliefs.
Interestingly, Masci (2009) found that of the general U.S. public, people who attend worship
services more frequently are less likely to perceive faith and science as conflicting forces. In
conjunction with Masci (2009), our results suggest that some factors leading to higher
acceptance of science could be familiarity with one’s religion (as long at the religion is neutral or
supportive to evolution), intellectual engagement and/or theological engagement. We
demonstrate that when students recognize that LDS doctrine is neutral towards evolution and are
able to actively discuss this point in a classroom setting, they become empowered to form
positive viewpoints on evolution.
Longitudinal surveys show that students from both semesters retained the same degree of
acceptance of evolution five to seven months following the end of class, while losing some
knowledge of evolution. Nadelson and Sinatra (2010) showed that acceptance of evolution
increases even when knowledge does not. We have shown that acceptance can be maintained
even while knowledge decreases over time. This makes for potential concern as it seemingly
produces students who have an ongoing favorable opinion/acceptance of evolution but cannot
recall specific principles that support the theory. We speculate that students may not remember
the details of what was being explained, but found the explanation compelling enough to
increase their acceptance. Further, since the MATE questions focus on “big picture” ideas, it
25
may be easier for students to retain impressions of the correctness of the theory six months later
while not being able to remember the more detailed nuances assessed by the KEE. The cause for
an increase in the KEE score during the semester could be due to extrinsic motivation to learn
evolution in order to get a better grade while their motivation for accepting is likely only intrinsic.
Therefore, once the semester is over the facts pertaining to evolution are quickly forgotten while
the attitudes remain intact because education that takes place by intrinsic motivation leads to
sustained learning (Ryan and Deci 2000).
It may seem surprising that MATE scores increased beyond the end of the semester. This is most
likely due to response bias. Only 30.8% and 23.3% of the students that took the surveys during
the winter 2013 and fall 2013 semesters, respectively, took the longitudinal surveys. While
incentives were offered to students who took the longitudinal surveys (entrance into a drawing),
those who actually completed it may have been those who had more interest in the topic.
Interestingly, we found that students who initially had higher acceptance of evolution were more
likely to participate in the longitudinal survey than those who initially had low acceptance of it (p
< .01).
Another interesting finding is that students seemed to retain knowledge of the LDS stance on
evolution while forgetting specific knowledge of evolution. There are some limitations to this
specific finding. The knowledge of the LDS stance on evolution was measured on a scale
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” while knowledge of evolution was
measured with a dichotomously scored test where they either got each question right or wrong.
Since student responses on the knowledge they retained toward the LDS stance on evolution
26
cannot be coded as right or wrong it is not possible to directly compare the retention of
knowledge of the LDS stance on evolution with the retention of knowledge concerning evolution.
However, we do find that knowledge of LDS doctrine remained while knowledge of evolution
was lost.
Intriguingly, students who were not part of a discussion of LDS doctrine saw gains in knowledge
of evolution that exceeded the treatment sections (Figure 3c). A possible explanation for this is
that students in the control section spent time learning biology content while their counterparts
were discussion religion. These discussions took up to 75 minutes, which is 3.6% of the total
class time over the semester or 12.5-25% of the class time devoted to the unit on evolution.
Other variables that may have influenced this greater gain in knowledge could be random
sampling, instructor effect, or learning style.
Conclusions
We recognize there are other limitations to this study. Foremost, we understand that our
conclusions were reached from an exclusively LDS population of students. The LDS church is
unique in the way its worldwide congregations are united by and adhered to the same doctrine.
However, this is also a benefit in such studies since attempting this same study among other
religions would prove more difficult due to the variation between congregations and sects. Thus,
the LDS population serves as a homogeneous representative sample of highly religious people.
Despite any limitations of this study, the results and principles we found are compelling and lead
to meaningful conclusions that can be applied to the classroom and future research.
27
Most student populations will have challenges, many unique, with accepting evolution. However,
the challenges can be overcome with purposeful intervention, usually by creating cognitive
dissonance for the students. For our study, we identified, diagnosed, and dealt with a barrier to
evolution acceptance that was prevalent in our classrooms. Our student population had issues
with accepting evolution due to lack of knowledge of their own religious doctrine, a challenge
not unique to LDS students. At BYU, we were able to create a controlled environment to
research this barrier and how to overcome it. We designed a meaningful intervention that led to
significant increases in acceptance of evolution. Allowing LDS students to discuss and explore
religious doctrine on evolution increased their willingness to accept it. We suggest that other
educators struggling to help students understand or accept evolution can likewise find
meaningful interventions to help overcome student reluctance toward evolution. One idea is for
educators to allow students time in class to brainstorm what hesitations they have to accepting
evolution, then direct them to research sources that support and contradict that hesitation.
Whatever the intervention, we hope this gives instructors creative insight to how they may
address barriers to evolution acceptance in their classroom.
For those educators interested in addressing the barrier of religion in evolution education, we
assert that our results can likely be extended to other Christian denominations because the
conflict between religion and evolution is relatively universal. We encourage educators to find
ways for religious students to explore their respective religious doctrines towards evolution. We
do not suggest that instructors necessarily take time out of class to discuss religion and science if
they are not comfortable doing so or do not feel it appropriate for their students. However, we
are suggesting that encouraging religious students to research their own religious doctrines may
28
prove valuable to student acceptance of the theory of evolution. For example, a resource for
students may be The Clergy Letter Project, which is a conglomeration of over 13,800 signatures
from numerous clergymen (including Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist clergy) who endorse
statements supporting the compatibility of religion and science (including evolution; Zimmerman
2010). For educators who teach students with potential religious barriers, this may be a helpful
tool for students to overcome reservations they may have about learning evolutionary theory. We
suggest that this model will hold with students claiming membership to other Christian religions,
which also have a neutral or favorable stance on the theory of evolution.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BYU: Brigham Young University
KEE: Knowledge of Evolution Exam
LDS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
MATE: Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution
ULSE: Understanding of the LDS Stance on Evolution
29
ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the BYU IRB for support in research and teachers in the college life
sciences at BYU for allowing us to distribute surveys to their students. We thank Qualtrics for
providing the platform for survey distribution, Kelsy Johnson and Brook Viiga for data input,
and Richard Sudweeks for help in data analyses. We thank the Bybee and Jensen labs as well as
reviewers for extensive help in revising this manuscript. This research was funded by a McKay
Award from Brigham Young University to SMB and JLJ) and NSF grant to SMB (DEB-
1265714).
30
REFERENCES
Affirmation of Creation. (2004). Official Statements,
http://www.adventist.org/information/official-
statements/statements/article/go/0/affirmation-of-creation/. Accessed 17 Dec 2014.
Akyol, G., Tekkya, C., & Sungur, S. (2010). The contribution of understanding of evolutionary
theory and nature of science to pre-service teachers' acceptance of evolutionary theory.
Procedia Social & Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1899-1893.
Anderson, D. L., K. M. Fisher & Norman, G.J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the
conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10),
952-978.
Andersson, B. & Wallin, A. (2006). On developing content-oriented theories taking biological
evolution as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 673-695.
Andrews, T. M., R. M. Price, L. S. Mead, T. L. McElhinny, A. Thanukos, K. E. Perez, C. F.
Herreid, D. R. Terry, & Lemons, P.P. (2012). Biology Undergraduates' Misconceptions
about Genetic Drift. Life Sciences Education, 11, 248-259.
Athanasiou, K. & Mavrikaki, E. (2013). Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection as a Tool for
Measuring Greek University Students' Evolution Knowledge: Differences between novice
and advanced students. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1262-1285.
Barnes, R. M., L. E. Keilholtz, & Alberstadt, A.L. (2009). Creationism and evolution beliefs
among college students. Skeptic, 14(3), 13-16.
Battisti, B. T., Hanegan, N., Sudweeks, R., & Cates, R. (2010). Using item response theory to
conduct a distracter analysis on conceptual inventory of natural selection. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5), 845-868.
31
Brewer, M. S. & Gardner, G.E. (2013). Teaching Evolution through the Hardy-Weinberg
Principle: A Real-Time, Active-Learning Exercise using Classroom Response Devices. The
American Biology Teacher, 75(7), 476-479.
Burton, E. K. (2011). Evolution and creationism in middle eastern education: A new perspective.
Evolution, 65(1), 301-304.
Carter, B. E., & Wiles, J. R. (2014). Scientific consensus and social controversy: exploring
relationships between students’ conceptions of the nature of science, biological evolution,
and global climate change. Evolution: education and outreach, 7(1), 6.
Cavallo, A.M. & McCall, D. (2008). Seeing may not mean believing: Examining students'
understandings and beliefs in evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 70(9), 522-530.
Colburn, A. & Henriques, L. (2006). Clergy views on evolution, creationism, science, and
religion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 419.
Cotner, S., D. C. Brooks, & Moore, R. (2010). "Is the age of the earth one of our “sorest
troubles?” Students’ perceptions about deep time affect their acceptance of evolutionary
theory. Evolution, 64(3), 858-864.
Coyne, J.A. (2012). Science, religion, and society: the problem of evolution in America.
Evolution, 66(8), 2654-2663.
Crawford, B.A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting
prospective teachers' ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-
based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613-637.
Foster, C. (2012). Creationism as a Misconception: Socio-cognitive conflict in the teaching of
evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2171-2180.
32
Grant, H. J., Ivins, A.W., & Nibley, C.W. (1925). Mormon View of Evolution. Salt Lake City,
Utah, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Ha, M., Haury, D. L., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link
between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49(1), 95-121.
Hafiz, Y. (2014). America's most and least religious colleges. The Huffington Post, Online.
academic ability, and biology knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(7),
749-783.
Harris Poll (2013). Americans’ Belief in God, Miracles and Heaven Declines: Belief in Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution Rises.
Heddy, B.C., & Nadelson, L.S. (2012). A global perspective of the variables associated with
acceptance of evolution. Evolution 5(3), 412-418.
Heddy, B.C., & Nadelson, L.S. (2013). The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in
the United States. Evolution, 6(1), 3.
Hill, J.P. (2014). National study of religion & human origins. BioLogos, Grand Rapids, MI.
98
Kudrna, J., Shore, M., and Wassenberg, D. (2015). Considering role of “need for cognition” in
students’ acceptance of climate change & evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 77(4),
250-257.
Lawson, A.E. (1978, ver. 2000). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal
reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1): 11-24.
Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 19(9), 743-760.
Lawson, A.E., Banks, D.L., and Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and
achievement in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706-724.
Lawson, A. E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions
concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9),
733-746.
Lawson, A. E., & Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: Effects of
instruction and reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(6), 589-606.
Lawson, A. E. & Worsnop, W.A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in
special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and
religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143-166.
Lin, P.C. (1980). A study of Piagetian cognitive –development and psychometric IQ in junior
and senior high-school students. ACTA Pscyhologica Tawiwanica, 22(2), 33-49.
Longest, K. C., and Smith, C. (2011). "Conflicting or Compatible: Beliefs About Religion and
Science Among Emerging Adults in the United States." Sociological Forum, 26(4), 846.
Masci, D. (2009, November 5). Scientists and belief. Pew Research Center, Washington D.C.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/, accessed September 2015.
99
Miller, K.R. (2000). Finding Darwin’s God: A scientist’s search for common ground between
God and evolution. Cliff Street Books.
Miller, T. (2008). U.S.Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and
Politically Relevant. The Pew Forum: On Religion & Public Life, Washington, D.C., 95-97.
Moore, R. (2000). The revival of creationism in the United States. Journal of Biological
Education, 35(1), 17-21.
Moore, R., Brooks, D. C., & Cotner, S. (2011). The relation of high school biology courses &
students' religious beliefs to college students' knowledge of evolution. The American
Biology Teacher, 73(4), 222-226.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for
applied researchers: User’s guide, 5.
Nadelson, L.S. & Sinatra, G.M. (2010). Shifting acceptance of evolution: Promising evidence of
the influence of the "understanding evolution" website. The Researcher, 23(1), 13-29.
Newport, F. (2010). Four in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism. Gallup Organization.
Niaz, M. (1991). Correlates of formals operational reasoning-a Neo-Piagetian analysis. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 19-40.
Rissler, L. J., Duncan, S. I., & Caruso, N. M. (2014). The relative importance of religion and
education on university students’ views of evolution in the Deep South and state science
standards across the United Rutledge, M. L., & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the
Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument with university
students. The American Biology Teacher, 69(6), 332-335.
Sanz, V.C. (2009). Darwin’s golden flame. Responses of biochemistry to intelligent design.
Teorema, 28(2), 173-188.
100
Sethi, S., & Seligman, M. E. (1993). Optimism and fundamentalism. Psychological Science, 4(4),
256-259.States. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 7(1), 24.
Scott, E. C. (1997). Antievolution and creationism in the United States. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 263-289.
Scott, E. C. (2005). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Univ of California Press.
Scott, E.C. (2006). Creationism and evolution: It’s the American way. CELL, 124(3), 449-451.
Shemesh, M. (1990). Gender-related differences in reasoning skills and learning interests of
junior-high-school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(7), 749-783.
Village, A., & Baker, S. (2013). Rejection of Darwinian evolution among churchgoers in
England: the effects of psychological type. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
52(3), 557-572.
Zimmerman, M. (2010). The clergy letter project.
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/rel_evol_sun.htm. Accessed 15 June 2015.
101
APPENDIX A: Religiosity and Demographic Survey 1. What is your gender? Male Female
2. How many total years of college education have you had? 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. How many semesters of biology did you take in high school? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. In which state did you attend High School? 5. What is the highest degree of education earned by your mother? no degree earned high school diploma associate's degree bachelor's degree graduate school degree 6. What is the highest degree of education earned by your father? no degree earned high school diploma associate's degree bachelor's degree graduate school degree 7. How often do you attend religious services and other activities at your place of worship?
102
every week or more often two or three times a month every month or so once or twice a year never 8. Which of the following would describe your answer to the question above? My attendance practices are probably above and beyond that which I feel is expected
of me My attendance practices are equal to that which I feel is expected of me My attendance practices are probably less than that which I feel is expected of me 9. From one to five (1=you do not believe / 5=you strongly believe), how strongly do you believe there is life after death? 1 (I do not believe in life after death) 2 3 (I am not sure if there is or is not life after death) 4 5 (I strongly believe that there is life after death) 10. From one to five (1=poor health /5=perfectly health), how healthy do you believe you are? 1 (very poor health) 2 3 (moderate health) 4 5 (perfectly healthy) 11. From one to five (1=not active in religion /5=very active in religion), how religious were you at age 16? 1 (not active in any religion) 2 3 (moderately active in a religion) 4 5 (very active in a religion) 12. From one to five (1=not active in religion /5=very active in religion), how religious are you now?
103
1 (not active in any religion) 2 3 (moderately active in a religion) 4 5 (very active in a religion) 13. Are you a convert to the LDS faith? (Baptized after the age of 8) Yes No 14. How often does your father attend religious services and other activities at your place of worship? every week or more often two or three times a month every month or so once or twice a year never 15. How often does your mother attend religious services and other activities at your place of worship? every week or more often two or three times a month every month or so once or twice a year never 16. From one to five (1=feel far from God /5=extremely close), how close do you feel to God? 1 (I feel far from God) 2 3 (I feel neither close to, nor far from, God) 4 5 (I feel extremely close to God) 17. How many non-religious groups are you a member of? (Example: clubs, societies, teams, etc 1-2 3-4 5-6 7+ 18. From one to five (1= very hesitant / 5=not hesitant at all), how hesitant are you to learning about topics that you feel are confrontational to your religion?
104
1(very hesitant) 2 3 (somewhat hesitant) 4 5 (not hesitant at all) 19. From one to five (1= never / 5=multiple times a day), how often do you pray? 1 (never) 2 3 (every day or so) 4 5 (multiple times a day) 20. Which of the following would best describe your response to the question above? I pray more often than that which I feel is expected of me I pray as often as that which I feel is expected of me I pray less often than that which I feel is expected of me 21. How many people live in your home? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10
105
22. Of the people living in your home, how many are members of the LDS faith? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 23. Did you serve an LDS mission? Yes No 24. Do you study for secular subjects (e.g., do your physics homework, study for a biology exam, etc.) on the Sabbath? All the time Sometimes Never 25. In reference to the question above, how would you rate your response (whether you do or don’t)? I feel that what I do is in line with (or required by) the expectations of my religion I feel that what I do may not be in line with the expectations of my religion, but I do it
anyway I have never thought about, or have no opinion on, whether what I do is in line with
the expectations of my religion or not 26. Referring to your current religious practices, how would you describe yourself? I am probably more religiously active than others in my religion I am probably equal in religious activity to others in my religion I am probably less religiously active than others in my religion 27. How would you best finish the following statement: My religious devotion is: Probably overzealous. Perfectly adequate. Probably not as much as it should be.
106
APPENDIX B: Survey on Understanding of the LDS View of Evolution (ULSE) Strongly
Disagree Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Agree Strongly
Agree
The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints has
official doctrine regarding evolution (including
human evolution).
The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is
opposed to evolution (including
human evolution).
The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints holds a
neutral position on the topic of
evolution (including
human evolution).
107
APPENDIX C: BYU Mission Statement (http://aims.byu.edu/mission_statement) The mission of Brigham Young University--founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued. All instruction, programs, and services at BYU, including a wide variety of extracurricular experiences, should make their own contribution toward the balanced development of the total person. Such a broadly prepared individual will not only be capable of meeting personal challenge and change but will also bring strength to others in the tasks of home and family life, social relationships, civic duty, and service to mankind. To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God. In that environment these four major educational goals should prevail: All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any
education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved. Certainly all relationships within the BYU community should reflect devout love of God and a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor.
Because the gospel encourages the pursuit of all truth, students at BYU should receive a broad university education. The arts, letters, and sciences provide the core of such an education, which will help students think clearly, communicate effectively, understand important ideas in their own cultural tradition as well as that of others, and establish clear standards of intellectual integrity.
In addition to a strong general education, students should also receive instruction in the special fields of their choice. The university cannot provide programs in all possible areas of professional or vocational work, but in those it does provide the preparation must be excellent. Students who graduate from BYU should be capable of competing with the best in their fields.
Scholarly research and creative endeavor among both faculty and students, including those in selected graduate programs of real consequence, are essential and will be encouraged.
In meeting these objectives BYU's faculty, staff, students, and administrators should be anxious to make their service and scholarship available to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its work worldwide. In an era of limited enrollments, BYU can continue to expand its influence both by encouraging programs that are central to the Church's purposes and by making its resources available to the Church when called upon to do so. We believe the earnest pursuit of this institutional mission can have a strong effect on the course of higher education and will greatly enlarge Brigham Young University's influence in a world we wish to improve. --Approved by the BYU Board of Trustees November 4, 1981
108
APPENDIX D: Survey with Demographic, Religious Measure, Creationist Views, Evolution Acceptance, and Knowledge of Evolution Questions Q1.1 My name is Katie Manwaring, I am a graduate student at Brigham Young University and I am conducting this research under the supervision of Professor Bybee, from the Department of Biology. You are being invited to participate in this research study of Evolution and Perceptions of the Religious Population. I am interested in finding out about the effects of religion on a person's attitude and knowledge concerning evolution in biology. We ask that you complete the following survey. This should take approximately 30 minutes of your time. Your participation will be anonymous and you will not be contacted again in the future. You will not be paid for being in this study. This survey involves minimal risk to you. The benefits, however, may impact society by helping increase knowledge about evolution education.Participation in this study is completely voluntary. We will be happy to answer any questions you have about this study. If you have further questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem you may contact me, Katie Manwaring at [email protected] or my advisor, Seth Bybee at [email protected] you have any questions about your rights as a research participant you may contact the IRB Administrator at A-285 ASB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602; [email protected]; (801) 422-1461. The IRB is a group of people who review research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants. The completion of this survey implies your consent to participate. If you choose to participate, please complete the following survey. Thank you! Demographic Questions Q1.2 Please select the religious organization that BEST represents your current belief system. Jewish Catholic Southern Baptist LDS (Mormon) None of the above Q1.3 How old are you? 18-25 26 or older Q1.4 What is your gender? Male Female
109
Q1.5 What year were you born? 1914 - 1997 Q1.6 What is your race? American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Middle Eastern Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White/ Caucasian Q1.7 How many total years of college education have you completed? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Q1.8 What is your major in college? Business Computer Sciences Education Engineering Family, Home, and Social Sciences Fine Arts and Communications Humanities International Studies Life Sciences Nursing or Pre-Medical Physical & Mathematical Sciences Open Major (No current major) I did/have not attended college
110
Q1.9 Please select the religious organization that BEST represents the belief system under which you were raised (It may be the same as your response above). Agnostic Atheist Spiritual/Not Religious Eastern (Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian) Jewish Muslim Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox Anglican/Episcopal Baptist LDS Lutheran Methodist Pentecostal Presbyterian Other
111
Measure of Religious Commitment Q2.1 Do you believe in God? Yes No Q2.2 How important is religion in your life? 1 (not at all important) 2 (hardly important) 3 (a little important) 4 (somewhat important) 5 (important) 6 (extremely important) Q2.3 Would you marry someone of another religion? Yes No Q2.4 Please select the response that you feel is most like you:
More than
once a day
Once a day
More than
once a week
Once a week
More than
once a month
Less than once a month
How often do you read holy scriptures?
How often do you attend Sunday School,
religious classes or seminars?
How often do you pray?
How often do you attend organized worship services?
How often do you attend other activities
sponsored by a religious group?
112
Q2.5 Please select the response that you feel is most like you: *If you do you not belong to a religion, answer the questions regarding your current worldview.
No influence
at all
Hardly any
influence
Some influence
Moderate influence
A lot of influence
Extreme influence
How much influence do your religious
beliefs have on what you wear?
How much influence do your religious
beliefs have on what you eat and drink?
How much influence do your religious
beliefs have on your choices about whom you associate with?
How much influence do your religious
beliefs have on what social activities you
undertake?
To what extent do your religious beliefs impact the important decisions
that you make?
Q2.6 Please select the response that you feel is most like you:
113
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Do you believe there is a heaven?
Do you believe it is possible for all
humans to live in harmony together?
Do you believe in miracles?
Do you believe your suffering will be
rewarded?
Do you believe that in the future your
children will be able to lead a better life
than yourself?
Q2.7 Which of the following most closely represents your religion’s or worldview's attitude toward evolution? a. openly advocates the theory of evolution b. tentatively advocates the theory of evolution c. is neutral concerning the theory of evolution d. tentatively rejects the theory of evolution e. openly rejects the theory of evolution Q2.8 To what degree do you agree with your religion’s or worldview's attitude toward evolution? Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
114
Creationist Views Q3.1 Please choose to what degree you agree with/endorse the following statements. Strongly
Disagree Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Agree Strongly
Agree
God created the earth and all living
organisms.
All creatures were created
independently of each other.
The earth was created in 6 days.
Life on earth as it is, is indicative of a
"creator."
Humans were directly created (by God) from the dust
of the earth.
The fall of Adam was the beginning
of death on the earth.
The earth was created in the last
10,000 years.
115
Q3.2 Please choose to what degree you agree with/endorse the following statements. Strongly
Disagree Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Agree Strongly
Agree
Holy scriptures are to be interpreted
literally.
Adam and Eve were the first humans on
earth.
All creatures on earth were created in the last 10,000
years.
The organisms God created are perfect.
All present day humans are direct
descendants of Adam and Eve.
Species do not change.
Q3.3 What most influenced your answers to the above statements? Religious Authority Family Influence Personal Study/Experience Instinct
116
Acceptance of Evolution Q3.4 Please choose to what degree you agree with/endorse the following statements. Strongly
Disagree Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Agree Strongly
Agree
Evolution is the best explanation for
life on Earth.
There were many human-like species before modern-day
humans.
Fossils are evidence of extinct
organisms.
All organisms share similar DNA
because they have descended from a common ancestor.
The scientific process is the best
way to gain knowledge of the
present and historical state of
the Earth.
The most likely age of the Earth is
billions of years old.
Q3.5 Please choose to what degree you agree with/endorse the following statements.
117
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
The laws of nature govern the phenomena
of the Earth.
Evolution provides the best explanation for the origin of modern-day
humans.
The Earth and life on it have developed over a vast amount of time.
Evolution can maintain organisms with many
flaws.
Humans developed from earlier life forms.
New species can be generated from one
original species.
118
Knowledge of Evolution The following sixteen questions test your knowledge of evolution. There is a correct answer to each question. Please answer to the best of your ability. Q4.1 Which of the following best describes the relationship between evolution and natural selection? a. natural selection is a random process whereas evolution proceeds toward a
specific goal
b. natural selection is differential survival of populations or groups, resulting in the evolution of individual organisms
c. natural selection is one mechanism that can result in the process of evolution d. natural selection produces small-scale changes in populations, whereas evolution
produces large-scale ones
e. they are equivalent terms describing the same process Q4.2 Which of the following concerning the theory of human evolution is true? a. evolutionary theory cannot help us explain, scientifically, human behavior b. the human population is not currently evolving c. there is very little evidence to support the theory of human evolution d. traces of our evolutionary past can be seen in human embryos e. none of the above is true Q4.3 A typical layer of rock is __________ than the layer above. a. older b. younger c. the same age d. This issue cannot be determined. Q4.4 Which of the following is the ultimate source of new variation in natural populations? a. gene flow b. hybridization
c. mutation
d. natural selection e. recombination
119
Q4.5 What is a change in the genetic makeup of a population of organisms through time? a. adaptive radiation
b. biological evolution c. genetic recombination d. Lamarckian evolution e. natural selection Q4.6 Which species of present-day apes are most closely related to present-day humans? a. Chimpanzees b. Gibbons c. Gorillas d. Orangutans Q4.7 What scientific avenue of investigation gave scientists the best estimate of the age of the Earth? a. dating fossils
b. archaeological dating
c. radiometric dating
d. carbon dating e. all of the above Q4.8 Which of the following statements about natural selection is true? a. all individuals within a population have an equal chance of survival and
reproduction; survival is based on choice b. natural selection causes variation to arise within a population c. natural selection leads to extinction d. natural selection leads to increase likelihood of survival for certain individuals
based on variation. The variation comes from outside the population e. natural selection results in those individuals within a population who are best-
adapted surviving and producing more offspring Q4.9 Which of the following is the most fit in an evolutionary sense? a. a lion who cares for his cubs, two of whom live to adulthood b. a lion who has a harem of many lionesses and one cub c. a lion who has many cubs, eight of which live to adulthood d. a lion who is successful at capturing prey but has no cubs
e. a lion who overcomes a disease and lives to have three cubs
120
Q4.10 Which of the following support the theory of human evolution? a. comparative biochemistry, where similarities and differences of DNA among
species can be quantified
b. comparative embryology, where the evolutionary history of similar structures
can often be traced c. fossil record of transition fossils showing how certain features have evolved d. vestigial structures that serve no apparent purpose e. all of the above provide evidence to support the theory of evolution Q4.11 What would you expect to find living on earth a million years from now? a. Only new organisms; all organisms would have evolved b. The same organisms that are here now c. Some of the same organisms that are here now and some new ones d. The same organisms that are here now and a few that were previously extinct Q4.12 How might a biologist explain why a species of birds has evolved a larger beak size? a. large beak size occurred as a result of mutation in each member of the
population b. some members of the ancestral population had larger beaks than others. If larger
beak size was advantageous, they would be more likely to survive and reproduce. As such, large beaked birds increased in frequency relative to small beaked birds
c. the ancestors of this bird species encountered a tree with larger than average sized seeds. They discovered that by stretching their beaks, the beaks would get longer, and this increase was passed on to their offspring. Over time, the bird beaks became larger
d. the ancestors of this bird species encountered a tree with larger than average sized seeds. They needed to develop larger beaks to eat the larger seeds, and over time, they adapted to meet this need
e. none of the above
121
Q4.13 CHOOSE THE OPTION THAT IS NOT CORRECT: Which of the following statements regarding evolution by natural selection is FALSE? a. mutations are important as the ultimate source of genetic variability upon
which natural selection can act b. natural selection acts on individuals
c. natural selection can result in the elimination of certain alleles from a
population’s gene pool d. natural selection is a random process
e. very small selective advantages can produce large effects through time
f. all of the above are false Q4.14 All organisms, including humans, share the same genetic code. This commonality is evidence that… a. evolution is occurring now
b. convergent evolution has occurred
c. evolution occurs gradually
d. all organisms are descended from a common ancestor e. life began millions of years ago Q4.15 Scientists estimate the age of the Earth to be about a. 6,000 years old b. 1 million years old c. 4.5 million years old d. 4.5 billion years old Q4.16 Resistance to a wide variety of insecticides has recently evolved in many species of insects. Why? a. humans are altering the environments of these organisms, and the organisms
are evolving by natural selection
b. humans have better health practices, so these organisms are trying to keep up
c. insects are smarter than humans d. mutations are on the rise e. no new species are evolving, just resistant strains or varieties; this is not
evolution by natural selection
122
APPENDIX E: SEM Output for Religious Affiliation by Evolution Acceptance Mplus VERSION 5.21 MUTHEN & MUTHEN 11/24/2015 11:54 AM INPUT INSTRUCTIONS TITLE: Acceptance of Evolution BY RELGROUP_SEM Final Partial Invariance Model from Separate multigroup models for each factor DATA: FILE='FAll2014_Panel_Responses.txt'; VARIABLE: Names Are ID RelAffil Relig01 Relig02 Relig03 Relig04 Relig05 RElig06 Relig07 Relig08 Relig09 RElig10 RElig11 RElig12 Relig13 RElig14 RElig15 Relig16 Relig17 Relig18 View01 View02 ACRS01 ACRS02 ACRS03 ACRS04 ACRS05 ACRS06 ACRS07 ACRS08 ACRS09 ACRS10 ACRS11 ACRS12 ACRS13 Influ01 ACSS01 ACSS02 ACSS03 ACSS04 ACSS05 ACSS06 ACSS07 ACSS08 ACSS09 ACSS10 ACSS11 ACSS12 EvolK01-EvolK16; USEVARIABLES = Relig04 Relig05 Relig07 Relig08 Relig09 RElig10 RElig11 RElig12 Relig13 RElig14 Relig15 Relig16 Relig17 Relig18 ACRS01 ACRS02 ACRS03 ACRS04 ACRS05 ACRS06 ACRS07 ACRS08 ACRS09 ACRS11 ACRS13 ACSS01 ACSS02 ACSS03 ACSS04 ACSS05 ACSS06 ACSS07 ACSS08 ACSS09 ACSS10 ACSS11 ACSS12; CATEGORICAL= All; GROUPING= RelAffil(1=Baptist 2=Catholic 3=Jewish 4=LDS); DEFINE: IF relig07==6 THEN relig07=5; IF relig14==1 THEN relig14=2; IF relig16==1 THEN relig16=2; IF ACRS01==1 THEN ACRS01=3; IF ACRS01==2 THEN ACRS01=3; ANALYSIS: MODEL:
[ACSS10$2-acss10$5]; [ACSS11$2-acss11$5]; [ACSS12$2-acss12$5]; SciAccep ON RBeliefs RPractic RInfluen RHope; RBeliefs ON RPractic RInfluen RHope; SciAccep ON RBeliefs (a); RBeliefs ON RInfluen (b); RBeliefs ON RHope (c); RBeliefs ON Rpractic (d); SciAccep ON RInfluen (e); SciAccep ON RHope(f); SciAccep ON Rpractic (g); MODEL BAPTIST: SciAccep ON RBeliefs (a); RBeliefs ON RInfluen (b); RBeliefs ON RHope (c); !This is supposed to vary for Baptist; RBeliefs ON Rpractic; SciAccep ON RInfluen (e); SciAccep ON RHope(f); SciAccep ON Rpractic (g); [SciAccep@0]; [Rbeliefs@0]; MODEL CATHOLIC: [Relig04$3-relig04$5]; [Relig05$2-relig05$5]; [Relig07$2-relig07$4]; [Relig08$2-relig08$5]; [Relig09$3-relig09$5]; [RElig10$2-relig10$5]; [RElig11$2-relig11$5]; [RElig12$2-relig12$5]; [Relig13$2-relig13$5]; [RElig14$3-relig14$4]; [Relig15$2-relig15$5];
125
[Relig16$2-relig16$4]; [Relig17$2-relig17$5]; [Relig18$2-relig18$5]; [ACRS01$3]; [ACRS02$2-acrs02$5]; [ACRS03$2-acrs03$5]; [ACRS04$2-acrs04$5]; [ACRS05$2-acrs05$5]; [ACRS06$2-acrs06$5]; [ACRS07$2-acrs07$5]; [ACRS08$2-acrs08$5]; [ACRS09$2-acrs09$5]; [ACRS11$2-acrs11$5]; [ACRS13$2-acrs13$5]; [ACSS01$3-acss01$5]; [ACSS02$2-acss02$5]; [ACSS03$2-acss03$5]; [ACSS04$2-acss04$5]; [ACSS05$2-acss05$5]; [ACSS06$2-acss06$5]; [ACSS07$2-acss07$5]; [ACSS08$2-acss08$5]; [ACSS09$2-acss09$5]; [ACSS10$2-acss10$5]; [ACSS11$2-acss11$5]; [ACSS12$2-acss12$5]; SciAccep ON RBeliefs (a); RBeliefs ON RInfluen (b); RBeliefs ON RHope (c); RBeliefs ON Rpractic (d); SciAccep ON RInfluen (e); SciAccep ON RHope(f); SciAccep ON Rpractic (g); !This is supposed to vary for Catholics only. ![SciAccep@0]; [Rbeliefs](h); MODEL JEWISH: ! Rpractic BY Relig04; ! [Relig04$3-relig04$5]; [Relig05$2-relig05$5]; [Relig07$2-relig07$4];
126
[Relig08$2-relig08$5]; [Relig09$3-relig09$5]; [RElig10$2-relig10$5]; [RElig11$2-relig11$5]; [RElig12$2-relig12$5]; [Relig13$2-relig13$5]; [RElig14$3-relig14$4]; [Relig15$2-relig15$5]; [Relig16$2-relig16$4]; [Relig17$2-relig17$5]; [Relig18$2-relig18$5]; [ACRS01$3]; [ACRS02$2-acrs02$5]; [ACRS03$2-acrs03$5]; [ACRS04$2-acrs04$5]; [ACRS05$2-acrs05$5]; [ACRS06$2-acrs06$5]; [ACRS07$2-acrs07$5]; [ACRS08$2-acrs08$5]; [ACRS09$2-acrs09$5]; [ACRS11$2-acrs11$5]; [ACRS13$2-acrs13$5]; [ACSS01$3-acss01$5]; [ACSS02$2-acss02$5]; [ACSS03$2-acss03$5]; [ACSS04$2-acss04$5]; [ACSS05$2-acss05$5]; [ACSS06$2-acss06$5]; [ACSS07$2-acss07$5]; [ACSS08$2-acss08$5]; [ACSS09$2-acss09$5]; [ACSS10$2-acss10$5]; [ACSS11$2-acss11$5]; [ACSS12$2-acss12$5]; SciAccep ON RBeliefs (a); RBeliefs ON RInfluen (b); !This is supposed to vary for Jewish only! RBeliefs ON RHope; RBeliefs ON Rpractic (d); SciAccep ON RInfluen (e); SciAccep ON RHope(f); SciAccep ON Rpractic (g);
SciAccep ON RInfluen (e); SciAccep ON RHope(f); SciAccep ON Rpractic (g); [SciAccep@0]; [Rbeliefs](h); OUTPUT: STDYX Modindices(20); INPUT READING TERMINATED NORMALLY Acceptance of Evolution BY RELGROUP_SEM Final Partial Invariance Model from Separate multigroup models for each factor SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Number of groups 4 Number of observations Group BAPTIST 182 Group CATHOLIC 182 Group JEWISH 178 Group LDS 182 Number of dependent variables 37 Number of independent variables 0 Number of continuous latent variables 5 Observed dependent variables Binary and ordered categorical (ordinal) RELIG04 RELIG05 RELIG07 RELIG08 RELIG09 RELIG10 RELIG11 RELIG12 RELIG13 RELIG14 RELIG15 RELIG16 RELIG17 RELIG18 ACRS01 ACRS02 ACRS03 ACRS04 ACRS05 ACRS06 ACRS07 ACRS08 ACRS09 ACRS11 ACRS13 ACSS01 ACSS02 ACSS03 ACSS04 ACSS05 ACSS06 ACSS07 ACSS08 ACSS09 ACSS10 ACSS11 ACSS12 Continuous latent variables SCIACCEP RBELIEFS RPRACTIC RINFLUEN RHOPE Variables with special functions
129
Grouping variable RELAFFIL Estimator WLSMV Maximum number of iterations 1000 Convergence criterion 0.500D-04 Maximum number of steepest descent iterations 20 Parameterization DELTA Input data file(s) FAll2014_Panel_Responses.txt Input data format FREE SUMMARY OF CATEGORICAL DATA PROPORTIONS Group BAPTIST RELIG04 Category 1 0.379 Category 2 0.077 Category 3 0.126 Category 4 0.121 Category 5 0.198 Category 6 0.099 RELIG05 Category 1 0.533 Category 2 0.055 Category 3 0.258 Category 4 0.137 Category 5 0.005 Category 6 0.011 RELIG07 Category 1 0.440 Category 2 0.099 Category 3 0.280 Category 4 0.154 Category 5 0.027 RELIG08 Category 1 0.604 Category 2 0.187 Category 3 0.115 Category 4 0.066 Category 5 0.022 Category 6 0.005
THE MODEL ESTIMATION TERMINATED NORMALLY WARNING: THE RESIDUAL COVARIANCE MATRIX (THETA) IN GROUP CATHOLIC IS NOT POSITIVE DEFINITE. THIS COULD INDICATE A NEGATIVE VARIANCE/RESIDUAL
137
VARIANCE FOR AN OBSERVED VARIABLE, A CORRELATION GREATER OR EQUAL TO ONE BETWEEN TWO OBSERVED VARIABLES, OR A LINEAR DEPENDENCY AMONG MORE THAN TWO OBSERVED VARIABLES. CHECK THE RESULTS SECTION FOR MORE INFORMATION. PROBLEM INVOLVING VARIABLE RELIG14. TESTS OF MODEL FIT Chi-Square Test of Model Fit Value 878.072* Degrees of Freedom 281** P-Value 0.0000 Chi-Square Contributions From Each Group BAPTIST 256.519 CATHOLIC 190.194 JEWISH 180.688 LDS 250.672 * The chi-square value for MLM, MLMV, MLR, ULSMV, WLSM and WLSMV cannot be used for chi-square difference tests. MLM, MLR and WLSM chi-square difference testing is described in the Mplus Technical Appendices at www.statmodel.com. See chi-square difference testing in the index of the Mplus User's Guide. ** The degrees of freedom for MLMV, ULSMV and WLSMV are estimated according to a formula given in the Mplus Technical Appendices at www.statmodel.com. See degrees of freedom in the index of the Mplus User's Guide. Chi-Square Test of Model Fit for the Baseline Model Value 9308.845 Degrees of Freedom 114 P-Value 0.0000 CFI/TLI CFI 0.935
lass one. Whr level rises t. o the same leo a higher levo a lower lev
Lawson’s Cla
you are givename. One balrect? -shaped pieces still weighghs more tha
piece coverses down mor
hing is flattenbeen added ohing is flatten
drawings ofntical in sizeel. The marbhen the glassto the 6th m
evel as it didvel than it di
vel than it did
assroom Tes
n two clay ball is flattened
ce weighs moh the same
an the pancak
s a larger arere on one spned it loses wor taken awaned it gains w
f two cylinde and shape. bles are the ss marble is park. If we pu
d in Cylinderid in Cylinded in Cylinde
st of Scientif
alls of equal d into a panc
ore than the
ke-shaped pi
ea. ot.
weight. ay. weight.
ers filled to Also shown
same size buput into Cylinut the steel m
r 1 er 1
er 1
fic Reasoning
size and shacake-shaped
ball
iece
the same levn at the right ut the steel onnder 1 it sink
marble into C
g
ape. The twopiece. Whic
vel with wateare two marne is much hks to the botCylinder 2, th
16
o clay balls ch of these
er. The rbles, one heavier than ttom and thehe water wil
65
ll
Q5.2b th th th th th
Q5.3aspaceThis cylin6th mcylin to to to to n Q5.3b th it it th on
b because... he steel marbhe marbles ahe steel marbhe glass marbhe marbles a
a Above areed marks on water rises tders are emp
mark. How hder? o about 8 o about 9 o about 10 o about 12 one of these
b because... he answer cat went up 2 mt goes up 3 inhe second cyne must actu
ble will sink are made of dble is heavieble creates l
are the same
drawings ofthem. Water
to the 6th maptied (not shigh would th
e answers is c
an not be detmore before,n the narrowylinder is narually pour th
k faster. different mater than the gless pressuresize.
f a wide andr is poured iark when po
hown) and whis water rise
correct
termined wit so it will go
w for every 2rrower. he water and
terials. lass marble. e.
d a narrow cnto the wideured into theater is pouree if it were p
th the informo up 2 more in the wide
observe to f
ylinder. Thee cylinder upe narrow cyled into the wpoured into t
mation givenagain. .
find out.
e cylinders hp to the 4th mlinder (see B
wide cylinderthe empty na
.
16
have equally mark (see A)B). Both r up to the arrow
66
).
Q5.4ato thecylin to to to to n Q5.4b th on th it y
Q5.5ahave Stringalso a3. Thmakehas afind o on al 2 1 1
a Water is ne 11th mark.der? o about 7 1/2o about 9 o about 8 o about 7 1/3one of these
b because... he ratios musne must actuhe answer cat was 2 less bou subtract 2
a Above is ametal weighg 2 is shorteattached to th
he strings (ane a swing canan effect on tout? nly one strinll three strinand 3 and 3 and 2
ow poured i How high w
2
3 e answers is c
st stay the saually pour than not be detbefore so it w2 from the w
a drawing of hts attached r. A 10-unit he end of Str
nd attached wn be timed. Sthe time it ta
ng gs
nto the narrowould this w
correct
ame. he water and termined witwill be 2 less
wide for ever
f three stringto their endsweight is atring 2. A 5-uweights) canSuppose youakes to swing
ow cylinder water rise if it
observe to fth the informs again. ry 3 from the
s hanging frs. String 1 anttached to theunit weight i
n be swung bu want to fing back and fo
(described it were poure
find out. mation given
e narrow.
rom a bar. Thnd String 3 ae end of Striis attached to
back and fortd out whetheorth. Which
n previous qed into the em
.
he three strinare the same ing 1. A 10-uo the end of th and the timer the lengthstrings wou
16
question) up mpty wide
ngs length.
unit weight iString
me it takes toh of the strinuld you use to
67
is
o g o
Q5.5b y y on to th
Q5.6aTubeThe tThe nexper re gr b n Q5.6b m m th th so
b because... ou must use ou must comnly the lengto make all pohe weights d
a Twenty frus I and II are
tubes are planumber of flriment showed light but nravity but nooth red lighteither red lig
b because... most flies aremost flies didhe flies needhe majority oome flies are
the longest mpare stringsths differ. ossible comp
differ.
uit flies are pe partially co
aced as showies in the un
ws that flies rnot gravity ot red light t and gravityght nor gravi
e in the upped not go to thd light to see of flies are ine in both end
strings. s with both l
parisons.
placed in eacovered with
wn. Then theyncovered parrespond to (r
y ity
r end of Tubhe bottom ofand must fly
n the upper eds of each tu
light and hea
ch of four glblack paper;y are exposert of each tubrespond mean
be III but sprf Tubes I andy against graends and in t
ube.
avy weights.
lass tubes. Th; Tubes III a
ed to red lighbe is shown ins move to o
read about evd III. avity. the lighted e
he tubes are and IV are noht for five miin the drawinor away from
venly in Tub
ends of the tu
16
sealed. ot covered. inutes. ng. This m):
be II.
ubes.
68
Q5.7aare shmove b gr b n Q5.7b so th th m m
a In a secondhown in the e to or away lue light butravity but nooth blue ligheither blue l
b because... ome flies arehe flies needhe flies are s
most flies aremost flies are
d experimendrawing. Thfrom):
t not gravity ot blue light ht and gravitight nor grav
e in both endd light to see pread about
e in the lightee in the uppe
nt, a differenhese data sho
ty vity
ds of each tuand must flyevenly in Tu
ed end of Tur end of Tub
t kind of fly ow that these
ube. y against graube IV and i
ube II but dobe I and the l
and blue lige flies respon
avity. in the upper
o not go dowlighted end o
ght was usednd to (respon
end of Tubewn in Tubes Iof Tube II.
16
d. The resultsnd means
e III. I and III.
69
s
Q5.8aare idSuppare th 1 1 1 1 ca Q5.8b 3 th on al on
a Six squaredentical in siose someone
he chances thchance out chance out chance out chance out
an not be de
b because... out of 6 pie
here is no wanly 1 piece oll 6 pieces arnly 1 red pie
e pieces of wize and shape reaches inthat the pieceof 6 of 3 of 2 of 1 termined
eces are red. ay to tell whof the 6 in thre identical iece can be pi
wood are put e, however, to the bag (we is red?
hich piece wihe bag is pickin size and sicked out of
into a cloth three pieces
without look
ill be pickedked. hape.
f the 3 red pie
bag and mixs are red anding) and pul
d.
eces.
xed about. Td three are yells out one pi
17
he six pieceellow. iece. What
70
s
Q5.9apieceblue rsomepieceblue r 1 1 1 1 Q5.9b 1 1 th on 1
a Three red es are put intround pieces
eone reachese) and pulls oround piece?chance out chance out
5 chances ouchance out
b because... of the 2 sha
5 of the 21 phere is no wanly 1 of the of every 3 p
square pieceto a cloth bags are also pu into the bagout one piece? of 3 of 21 ut of 21 of 2
apes is roundpieces are reay to tell wh21 pieces is
pieces is a re
es of wood, fg. Four red r
ut into the bag (without loe. What ar
d. d or blue.
hich piece wipicked out o
ed or blue ro
four yellow round piecesag. All the piooking and wre the chanc
ill be pickedof the bag. und piece.
square pieces, two yellowieces are thenwithout feelines that the p
d.
es, and five bw round piecn mixed abong for a part
piece is a red
17
blue square ces, and threeout. Supposeticular shaped round or
71
e e e
Q5.10of theThis colorthemof the ap ap ca Q5.10 th th th m as
0a Farmer Bem were eithmade him w
r of their tail. Above are e mice and thppears to be ppears not toannot make
0b because..here are somhere may be here were no
most of the fas the mice gr
Brown was oher fat or thin
wonder if thes. So he captthe mice thahe color of ta link
o be a link a reasonable
.. me of each kin
a genetic linot enough miat mice haverew fatter, th
bserving then. Also, all ore might be tured all of tat he capturetheir tails?
e guess
nd of mousenk between mice captured
e black tails wheir tails bec
e mice that liof them had a link betwethe mice in oed. Do you t
e. mouse size a. while most ocame darker.
ive in his fieeither black
een the size oone part of hthink there is
and tail color
of the thin m.
eld. He discotails or whit
of the mice ahis field and s a link betw
r.
mice have wh
17
overed that ate tails. and the observed
ween the size
hite tails.
72
all
e
173
Q5.11a The figure above at the left shows a drinking glass and a burning birthday candle stuck in a small piece of clay standing in a pan of water. When the glass is turned upside down, put over the candle, and placed in the water, the candle quickly goes out and water rushes up into the glass (shown above). This observation raises an interesting question: Why does the water rush up into the glass? Here is a possible explanation. The flame converts oxygen into carbon dioxide. Because oxygen does not dissolve rapidly into water but carbon dioxide does, the newly-formed carbon dioxide dissolves rapidly into the water, lowering the air pressure inside the glass. Suppose you have the materials mentioned above plus some matches and some dry ice (dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide). Using some or all of the materials, how could you test this possible explanation? Saturate the water with carbon dioxide and redo the experiment noting the amount of
water rise. The water rises because oxygen is consumed, so redo the experiment in exactly the
same way to show water rise due to oxygen loss. Conduct a controlled experiment varying only the number of candles to see if that
makes a difference. Suction is responsible for the water rise, so put a balloon over the top of an open-
ended cylinder and place the cylinder over the burning candle. Redo the experiment, but make sure it is controlled by holding all independent
variables constant; then measure the amount of water rise. Q5.11b What result of your test (mentioned above) would show that your explanation is probably wrong? The water rises the same as it did before. The water rises less than it did before. The balloon expands out. The balloon is sucked in.
THE MODEL ESTIMATION TERMINATED NORMALLY MODEL FIT INFORMATION Number of Free Parameters 263 Chi-Square Test of Model Fit Value 2284.178*
181
Degrees of Freedom 1064 P-Value 0.0000 * The chi-square value for MLM, MLMV, MLR, ULSMV, WLSM and WLSMV
cannot be used for chi-square difference testing in the regular way. MLM, MLR and WLSM chi-square difference testing is described on the Mplus website. MLMV, WLSMV, and ULSMV difference testing is done using the DIFFTEST option. RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation) Estimate 0.040 90 Percent C.I. 0.038 0.042 Probability RMSEA <= .05 1.000 CFI/TLI CFI 0.982 TLI 0.981 Chi-Square Test of Model Fit for the Baseline Model Value 70802.244 Degrees of Freedom 1128 P-Value 0.0000 WRMR (Weighted Root Mean Square Residual) Value 1.445 MODEL RESULTS Two-Tailed Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value SCIACCEP BY ACSS01 1.000 0.000 999.000 999.000 ACSS02 0.732 0.026 27.896 0.000 ACSS03 0.936 0.020 46.064 0.000 ACSS04 0.671 0.031 21.628 0.000 ACSS05 0.910 0.022 41.069 0.000 ACSS06 0.956 0.020 46.734 0.000 ACSS07 0.643 0.030 21.254 0.000 ACSS08 0.946 0.020 47.649 0.000
LCTSR09 0.565 0.046 12.193 0.000 0.435 LCTSR10 0.196 0.037 5.271 0.000 0.804 LCTSR11 0.070 0.026 2.708 0.007 0.930 LCTSR12 0.078 0.026 3.034 0.002 0.922 QUALITY OF NUMERICAL RESULTS Condition Number for the Information Matrix 0.132E-03 (ratio of smallest to largest eigenvalue) MODEL MODIFICATION INDICES NOTE: Modification indices for direct effects of observed dependent variables regressed on covariates and residual covariances among observed dependent variables may not be included. To include these, request MODINDICES (ALL). Minimum M.I. value for printing the modification index 20.000 M.I. E.P.C. Std E.P.C. StdYX E.P.C. BY Statements SCIACCEP BY RELIG04 56.409 -0.232 -0.199 -0.199 SCIACCEP BY RELIG08 49.666 0.225 0.193 0.193 SCIACCEP BY RELIG10 50.315 0.214 0.183 0.183 SCIACCEP BY RELIG13 31.731 -0.152 -0.131 -0.131 SCIACCEP BY RELIG18 60.153 0.312 0.267 0.267 SCIACCEP BY ACRS06 21.369 -0.195 -0.167 -0.167 SCIACCEP BY ACRS08 35.777 0.262 0.225 0.225 SCIACCEP BY ACRS09 25.012 0.212 0.182 0.182 SCIACCEP BY LCTSR06 50.943 0.139 0.120 0.120 RBELIEFS BY RELIG04 81.812 0.274 0.261 0.261 RBELIEFS BY RELIG08 59.606 -0.238 -0.227 -0.227 RBELIEFS BY RELIG10 41.961 -0.214 -0.204 -0.204 RBELIEFS BY RELIG13 39.797 0.184 0.176 0.176 RBELIEFS BY RELIG18 49.456 -0.615 -0.587 -0.587 RBELIEFS BY ACSS02 53.237 0.267 0.255 0.255 RBELIEFS BY ACSS04 57.427 0.317 0.302 0.302 RBELIEFS BY ACSS07 45.033 0.256 0.244 0.244 RBELIEFS BY ACSS11 57.432 -0.219 -0.209 -0.209 RBELIEFS BY ACSS12 23.524 -0.139 -0.133 -0.133 RBELIEFS BY LCTSR03 22.324 0.085 0.081 0.081 RBELIEFS BY LCTSR06 57.423 -0.126 -0.120 -0.120 RBELIEFS BY LCTSR12 20.260 -0.071 -0.067 -0.067
197
RPRACTIC BY ACSS02 46.435 0.222 0.209 0.209 RPRACTIC BY ACSS07 24.492 0.163 0.153 0.153 RPRACTIC BY ACSS11 46.592 -0.195 -0.184 -0.184 RPRACTIC BY LCTSR03 22.719 0.113 0.106 0.106 RPRACTIC BY LCTSR06 53.972 -0.160 -0.151 -0.151 RINFLUEN BY RELIG04 79.446 0.481 0.441 0.441 RINFLUEN BY RELIG08 40.691 -0.350 -0.321 -0.321 RINFLUEN BY ACRS06 21.170 -0.213 -0.196 -0.196 RINFLUEN BY ACSS02 58.242 0.238 0.218 0.218 RINFLUEN BY ACSS04 26.588 0.175 0.160 0.160 RINFLUEN BY ACSS07 27.875 0.166 0.152 0.152 RINFLUEN BY ACSS11 59.428 -0.202 -0.186 -0.186 RINFLUEN BY ACSS12 26.028 -0.135 -0.124 -0.124 RINFLUEN BY LCTSR03 23.192 0.105 0.096 0.096 RINFLUEN BY LCTSR06 50.598 -0.144 -0.132 -0.132 RHOPE BY RELIG04 72.116 0.293 0.292 0.292 RHOPE BY RELIG08 53.446 -0.259 -0.258 -0.258 RHOPE BY RELIG10 32.883 -0.214 -0.213 -0.213 RHOPE BY RELIG13 37.817 0.200 0.199 0.199 RHOPE BY ACRS05 21.218 -0.450 -0.448 -0.448 RHOPE BY ACRS06 34.464 -0.543 -0.541 -0.541 RHOPE BY ACSS02 46.113 0.216 0.215 0.215 RHOPE BY ACSS04 57.432 0.273 0.272 0.272 RHOPE BY ACSS07 43.703 0.218 0.217 0.217 RHOPE BY ACSS11 60.210 -0.200 -0.199 -0.199 RHOPE BY ACSS12 25.969 -0.130 -0.130 -0.130 RHOPE BY LCTSR03 22.122 0.091 0.091 0.091 RHOPE BY LCTSR06 59.393 -0.139 -0.138 -0.138 WITH Statements RELIG05 WITH RELIG04 33.178 -0.190 -0.190 -1.358 RELIG07 WITH RELIG04 26.797 -0.169 -0.169 -1.140 RELIG08 WITH RELIG05 21.088 0.147 0.147 0.523 RELIG08 WITH RELIG07 27.887 0.164 0.164 0.552 RELIG12 WITH RELIG11 25.776 0.100 0.100 0.636 RELIG18 WITH RELIG17 34.498 0.220 0.220 0.390 ACSS03 WITH ACSS02 33.080 0.170 0.170 0.368 ACSS05 WITH ACRS05 31.913 -0.209 -0.209 -0.419 ACSS05 WITH ACRS06 52.429 -0.239 -0.239 -0.518 LCTSR09 WITH LCTSR08 29.930 0.325 0.325 0.683 DIAGRAM INFORMATION Use View Diagram under the Diagram menu in the Mplus Editor to view the diagram.
198
If running Mplus from the Mplus Diagrammer, the diagram opens automatically. Diagram output f:\sem\final measurement model_scientificreasoning.dgm Beginning Time: 12:34:44 Ending Time: 12:35:08 Elapsed Time: 00:00:24 MUTHEN & MUTHEN 3463 Stoner Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90066 Tel: (310) 391-9971 Fax: (310) 391-8971 Web: www.StatModel.com Support: [email protected] Copyright (c) 1998-2015 Muthen & Muthen